"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." ~ Suzanna Gratia Hupp

The Renewal of American Culture

"The modern world sits at a crossroad in the middle of a major crisis. At the root of this crisis lies the paradox of the rise of both radical individualism and statism. On one hand many in the modern world have become so accustomed to considering themselves as individuals they have forgotten that although individualism has many positive characteristics with a long and noble tradition, particularly in the United States, this sense of individualism cannot lead into selfish nihilism for society to remain healthy"

Comments

That is as contradictory, and revealing, as saying, "I'm for natural polyester, and contemptuous of wool."

First, egalitarianism IS natural.

Humans have evolved to be egalitarian, as evidenced by low sexual dimorphism (on the level of penguins) and zero sexual dichromaticism (as compared to the red ass baboon.) For starters, see Christopher Boehm's "Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior," (2001) published by Harvard University Press.

Second, only in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typography have anthropologists observed humans to be "autonomous and sovereign" individuals "who bow to no external political leaders." (Service, 1975)

Egalitarianism means equal sociopolitical power. That is, no one Lords-it-over anybody else. Jefferson was quite egalitarian with his famous "all men are created equal" phrase.

Egalitarianism = the greatest personal freedom.

Unfortunately, I've learned that Libertarian types are like young-earth creationist types when it comes to empirical data that debunks their dearly held delusions.

And Libertarians hold their delusions so they can hold hierarchical power and Lord-it-over other people. Funny thing is, they love Lording -it-over others, but don't much like it above them. And write vast volumes how that contradiction should be able to work, even though it never does.

Seems they'd check their premises against a bit of scientific literature, but they never do.